An article that altered my perception of 3D movies

[Sandor 459]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

It's a great read. Sorry if it has been posted before. 3D movies never caught fire with me and I always wondered why. As a child I dreamed about a time when 3D would become a standard in modern cinema.

The article puts into writing what I so far only felt, but couldn't put to words. Hope you'll enjoy it as much as I did.

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Brónach 490]

He's right about the focus/convergence problem. And everything else.

Our brain creates a 3D image using our eyes in a certain way, if we can't use our eyes properly the 3D image will never be like the ones we usually create.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

3D has always felt gimmicky ans less natural to me then "normal" film/TV.

[Datameister 1,394]

I think all of the facts and arguments that are mentioned in that article are very sound, very reasonable. However, I remain very split on the issue of 3D.

The thing is, for me personally, the convergence vs. focus issue has never been...well, an issue. I learned to view "Magic Eye" stereograms at a pretty young age, so my eyes have been comfortable focusing on one thing and converging toward another for a long time. (Maybe there's some natural talent there, but my family all sucks at it, so I think I was just highly motivated to learn it early on.) So I can watch a long 3D film like Avatar and not get any headaches or eye strain or anything. I understand that there are many who are less fortunate, and I think that should absolutely be a factor in all this; I'm just saying that when I'm watching a film, it doesn't affect my experience.

But I do think there are some very serious challenges and even flaws in 3D filmmaking, especially in its current state. Somewhere on this board is a post I wrote, detailing all of the flaws I found in the 3D of Avatar. I got some serious flack for that, albeit without any actual counterarguments to back it up. The gist of it was that 3D films need to be shot in a way that's fundamentally more...natural than 2D films. The central appeal of 3D (for some) is that it downplays the cinematographic elements of the camera and screen and attempts to immerse you in a more "real" world, one that should feel like we're seeing with our own eyes. That means that filmmakers need to carefully avoid harsh edits, extreme focal lengths (AKA very wide or telephoto lenses), lens flares, nauseating camera movements, and extreme bokeh (defocused) effects. All of these can lead to unpleasant distractions from the experience, even though they can all be very useful tools in 2D filmmaking.

If filmmakers could consistently achieve this, I'd be well on my way to really appreciating 3D cinema. The other half of the issue is all the technology itself, which does indeed need to be able to achieve brighter, more saturated colors. A higher framerate would be nice, too, but I admit I've never noticed any strobing issues.

Of course, one challenge that 3D will likely face for years to come - possibly indefinitely - is its well-earned reputation for being gimmicky. Filmmakers nowadays have toned it down, but culture isn't likely to forget the memory of things popping out wildly at the audience just for the sake of visceral thrills anytime soon. Some people hate 3D because of that, while other people hate 3D that isn't like that. Either way, it makes it more difficult for it to be taken seriously as a tool for providing a more immersive, less cinematographic experience.

[airmanjerm 77]

I agree with Stefan here...to me, 3D seems like a gimmick to get "butts in the seats." (And at an ASANINE price, I might add.)

I think that - like everything else related to entertainment - personal taste will always win. So I'm happy for the people who shell out $17.50 for Shrek 3-D and feel like it's money well spent. I think to me though, I'm wondering when we're going to get back to movies being more than the latest cash-cow for X-Studio.

The idea of squeezing blood from a rock has been going around the pop music world now for a LONG time - where seemingly random people are turned into pop stars by industries who can slap a "cute" face on a poster, auto-tune the hell out of someone who can't sing in public to save their lives, but then sell MILLIONS to the teeny boppers who really don't know any better. I could write for DAYS on the disappointment I feel when watching the Grammy Awards, but I'll spare you all.

Unfortunately, I see the film industry moving in the same direction, in some ways. Like the music world, there are still artists out there who use a film to tell a good story, get a response, and make you FEEL something. But like the pop music world, our real artists are being beat out by the CRAP that the industry exudes. 12-year-olds buy lots of movie tickets, so let's flood the market with tons of movies aimed at 12-year-olds! Right? That's how the music industry has been working lately, so why not? Seems to work. Not to say that lots of these movies aren't fun sometimes, but when they become the "norm," then where do our expectations move?

It often seems to me that the whole "3-D" thing is just another trick to fill seats when the story and character development aren't going to be enough. It's just one step further than what Lucas did with those Star Wars prequels...effects and technology over story and character.

If you've never visited Hollywood, I recommed it. It truly is a magical place, even with all the tourist-traps and all that mess. But it's interesting to think about the "Golden Age of Hollywood." These days, films rarely get attention because the actors are known for being great actors - it's typically more of a "marketing scheme," and the movie with the most fast-food connections will be the one to break the bank. Sure we've always had movies aimed at kids, but they weren't always the majority of things we could see at the box office.

Once in a while, people still anticipate a movie opening. Movies used to be special if they had a big red-carpet premiere with news media, guests, and all that; these days, it seems like I can take a crap in a box and get a premiere for it with a red carpet somewhere (and Gary Busey will probably show up for it!). So, I ask...

When is the last time that you honestly felt like a film was something special?

[Brónach 490]

When is the last time that you honestly felt like a film was something special?

WALL·E for me.

[Quintus 5,391]

I personally think people get wound up by 3D for fuck all. It's a massive gimmick, and an enjoyably welcome one for some; but not for others. Same as some movies, funnily enough. If 3D suddenly disappeared from cinemas nobody would give a shit, it wouldn't leave a crater of cinematic destruction, a medium scarred forever, damaged goods - nah; nobody would even blink an eye. 3D is not to be feared, or hated; don't like it? Avoid it. Job done, easy.

People act like 3D ruins lives, daft sods.

[airmanjerm 77]

I personally think people get wound up by 3D for fuck all. It's a massive gimmick, and an enjoyably welcome one for some; but not for others. Same as some movies, funnily enough. If 3D suddenly disappeared from cinemas nobody would give a shit, it wouldn't leave a crater of cinematic destruction, a medium scarred forever, damaged goods - nah; nobody would even blink an eye. 3D is not to be feared, or hated; don't like it? Avoid it. Job done, easy.

People act like 3D ruins lives, daft sods.

I think that's how I feel about the actualy concept of 3D also; unfortunately I got a little off subject, sorry!

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Charlie Brigden 5]

The problem for me is the pricing. If I want to see a film as intended in 3-D, I have to pay an extra three or four pounds on top of the normal extortionately priced ticket for the privilege (and the whole glasses fee is bullshit, if I went to a cinema with the dozens of glasses I have in the cupboard they wouldn't give me any money off), and it's likely the film won't be all that good. If I want to see it in 2-D I have to see if they're running it at all, and if they are it'll likely be on a smaller screen.

That said, I'm interested at what Scorsese will do with Hugo Chabret.

[Sandor 459]

I personally think people get wound up by 3D for fuck all. It's a massive gimmick, and an enjoyably welcome one for some; but not for others. Same as some movies, funnily enough. If 3D suddenly disappeared from cinemas nobody would give a shit, it wouldn't leave a crater of cinematic destruction, a medium scarred forever, damaged goods - nah; nobody would even blink an eye. 3D is not to be feared, or hated; don't like it? Avoid it. Job done, easy.

People act like 3D ruins lives, daft sods.

Nobody acts like it ruins lives Quint.

However; in this day and age you cannot avoid it (like you imply is a 'job done easy'). Great filmmakers like Spielberg, Scorsese and Ridley Scott are adopting the medium and are shooting films in 3D.

What concerns me is that they are using a significant amount of time during the creative development of a movie on the 3D gimmick. So time that would normally be used for art-direction, writing, etc. has to compressed in order to cramp in time for 3D preparation and shit like that.

Obviously James Cameron spend so much time during the development of Avatar on the 3D technology that it hurt the development of the story, the characters, etc. There is only so little time before shooting and - after reading the fantastic Making of ESB book - I've come to realise that truly great movies have used the pre-production time wisely to create the most important things: writing a great screenplay and developing truly great visual ideas to tell a good story.

This is why I fear for TinTin. How much time has Spielberg taken during the creative development of the film to adopt the 3D technology? How much time will Jackson reserve for this during the production of The Hobbit?

I feel Lucas did the same thing with the prequels: he took so much time from pre-production to develop and adopt technology (I wonder how much precious time went into creating Jar Jar) that he had to cut corners on the most basic and important aspects: story and character development. With ESB the development of the required technology and the development of the screenplay seemed to be in perfect harmony. The same was the case with the LOTR films. With Avatar the focus was clearly on the technology and it shows.

So in my opinion the time filmmakers are going to spend on adopting 3D is going to hurt the quality of the films they're working on, because that time is going to come from somewhere. I know this is a temporary situation (assuming someone like Spielberg will master the technology at some point), but I feel that in a few years the gimmick will be limited to themepark rides only and a string of potential great films were stripped of greatness because there was so much time devoted to 3D.

[Quintus 5,391]

Sorry Roald, but if you believe any director (craftsman, artist) worth his salt is going to embrace 3D at the expense of his/her all consuming creative vision, you're wrong. That's a naive point of view.

I'm pretty sure the reason Spielberg and Jackson are employing 3D for Tintin and The Hobbit is because they feel it's a great medium, it adds to the experience for lots of happy cinema goers and it's a clever way to make a few more quid at the box office.

I don't think an unfortunate byproduct of their train of thought is a creativety vacuum which sucks away vital imagination, inventiveness and vision. It's distorted hyperbole to suggest otherwise. Take that tin hat off your head.

[TownerFan 4,548]

It's interesting to note that Spielberg wanted to do Tintin with live actors and sets, but it was convinced by Jackson to do it in performance-capture and 3D.

[Quintus 5,391]

Cameron had a part in it, too. Spielberg and Jackson visited him on the Avatar set and were apparently "blown away" by the tech.

[AC1 3,565]

Thanks for that article, Roald.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I personally think people get wound up by 3D for fuck all. It's a massive gimmick, and an enjoyably welcome one for some; but not for others. Same as some movies, funnily enough. If 3D suddenly disappeared from cinemas nobody would give a shit, it wouldn't leave a crater of cinematic destruction, a medium scarred forever, damaged goods - nah; nobody would even blink an eye. 3D is not to be feared, or hated; don't like it? Avoid it. Job done, easy.

People act like 3D ruins lives, daft sods.

Nobody acts like it ruins lives Quint.

However; in this day and age you cannot avoid it (like you imply is a 'job done easy'). Great filmmakers like Spielberg, Scorsese and Ridley Scott are adopting the medium and are shooting films in 3D.

What concerns me is that they are using a significant amount of time during the creative development of a movie on the 3D gimmick. So time that would normally be used for art-direction, writing, etc. has to compressed in order to cramp in time for 3D preparation and shit like that.

Obviously James Cameron spend so much time during the development of Avatar on the 3D technology that it hurt the development of the story, the characters, etc. There is only so little time before shooting and - after reading the fantastic Making of ESB book - I've come to realise that truly great movies have used the pre-production time wisely to create the most important things: writing a great screenplay and developing truly great visual ideas to tell a good story.

This is why I fear for TinTin. How much time has Spielberg taken during the creative development of the film to adopt the 3D technology? How much time will Jackson reserve for this during the production of The Hobbit?

I feel Lucas did the same thing with the prequels: he took so much time from pre-production to develop and adopt technology (I wonder how much precious time went into creating Jar Jar) that he had to cut corners on the most basic and important aspects: story and character development. With ESB the development of the required technology and the development of the screenplay seemed to be in perfect harmony. The same was the case with the LOTR films. With Avatar the focus was clearly on the technology and it shows.

So in my opinion the time filmmakers are going to spend on adopting 3D is going to hurt the quality of the films they're working on, because that time is going to come from somewhere. I know this is a temporary situation (assuming someone like Spielberg will master the technology at some point), but I feel that in a few years the gimmick will be limited to themepark rides only and a string of potential great films were stripped of greatness because there was so much time devoted to 3D.

Why don't we just be grateful for the advancement in technology those films brought about, well worth the 'sacrifice' in other departments.

[Wojo 2,442]

Because nobody spoke up for the natives when Columbus came to the New World, and they all died of smallpox in the name of "advancing technology." Was that sacrifice worth it?

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I fail to see the analogy there.

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Sandor 459]

Cameron had a part in it, too. Spielberg and Jackson visited him on the Avatar set and were apparently "blown away" by the tech.

I wish they would have been "blown away" by the screenplay and story instead...

[Quintus 5,391]

[Ollie 859]

Thanks for posting Roald, I had read his article back in January.

[Naïve Old Fart 6,637]

I wonder how successful films that have been converted to 3D, would be if they had been released only in 2D? I'm thinking of "Alice In Wonderland", here, a great big pile of poo, if ever I saw one. Did it honestly deserve to make over $1,000,000,000? How much of that was because it was presented in 3D?

What about "Avatar"? Now, before you all go on me, would that film have made almost $3,000,000,000 if it had been filmed and released in 2D? I think not.

I know that Hollywood exists to make vast amounts of wonga, but where do you draw the line between a genuine desire to further the art of film, and to give audiences something that they have never seen, and simply turning the next release into a money-hoovering service just because it's in 3D?

[Wojo 2,442]

Avatar was the convergence of multiple headlines that led to a cinematic event.

The first Cameron film in what seemed like a generation.

The best use of computer generated people in both "real" and simulated alien environments. (Sorry Jar-Jar)

The best usage of 3D at immersivity.

A hot lady in an even sexier alien getup. (Talking about Zoe, but Hitch would find no fault with Sigourney either)

Plus it was long. Long movies = epic = attention.

[Naïve Old Fart 6,637]

Avatar was the convergence of multiple headlines that led to a cinematic event.

The first Cameron film in what seemed like a generation.

The best use of computer generated people in both "real" and simulated alien environments. (Sorry Jar-Jar)

The best usage of 3D at immersivity.

A hot lady in an even sexier alien getup. (Talking about Zoe, but Hitch would find no fault with Sigourney either)

Plus it was long. Long movies = epic = attention.

I agree with all you have said, Wojo, but I still wonder if it would have had a tenth of its impact, if was not in 3D? I guess we'll never know.

Talking of "hot lady in an even sexier alien getup", am I the only one who thinks that Helena BC is tentpoleingly sexy as an ape?

[Wojo 2,442]

Talking of "hot lady in an even sexier alien getup", am I the only one who thinks that Helena BC is tentpoleingly sexy as an ape?

I'd monkey around with that.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Roger is wrong.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Why don't we just be grateful for the advancement in technology those films brought about, well worth the 'sacrifice' in other departments.

I think (actually I hope) that Burga is being ironic here.

I actually was kind of serious. I don't see why filmmakers should hold back from pushing the technological envelope, even if it may hurt the film in other areas (all speculation). Put it another way, should George Lucas had just spent more time developing the story and character development of Star Wars (yes i mean A New Hope) instead of forging new frontiers in special effects? Should he have given up and thrown out half the effects scenes in that movie and replaced them with a deeper, richer story instead of pumping all that effort into the newly born ILM?

If Tintin turns out to be a disaster because Spielberg spent too much time trying to grasp 3D, so be it. Maybe its the geek in me, but I find new technology fascinating.

[Datameister 1,394]

I actually was kind of serious. I don't see why filmmakers should hold back from pushing the technological envelope, even if it may hurt the film in other areas (all speculation). Put it another way, should George Lucas had just spent more time developing the story and character development of Star Wars (yes i mean A New Hope) instead of forging new frontiers in special effects? Should he have given up and thrown out half the effects scenes in that movie and replaced them with a deeper, richer story instead of pumping all that effort into the newly born ILM?

But story wasn't sacrificed in Star Wars. It wasn't an either/or situation...he had a story he wanted to tell, and he surrounded himself with people who could help him both refine the ideas into something awesome and make them actually come to life on screen. The film succeeded because of both. A deficient story would have killed the film, just like deficient visual effects would have. They nailed both and ended up unexpectedly creating a cultural phenomenon.

[Sandor 459]

I actually was kind of serious. I don't see why filmmakers should hold back from pushing the technological envelope, even if it may hurt the film in other areas (all speculation). Put it another way, should George Lucas had just spent more time developing the story and character development of Star Wars (yes i mean A New Hope) instead of forging new frontiers in special effects? Should he have given up and thrown out half the effects scenes in that movie and replaced them with a deeper, richer story instead of pumping all that effort into the newly born ILM?

But story wasn't sacrificed in Star Wars. It wasn't an either/or situation...he had a story he wanted to tell, and he surrounded himself with people who could help him both refine the ideas into something awesome and make them actually come to life on screen. The film succeeded because of both. A deficient story would have killed the film, just like deficient visual effects would have. They nailed both and ended up unexpectedly creating a cultural phenomenon.

Well said. Anyone with some knowledge about the making of Star Wars is aware of the fact that the pre-production of the film was devoted mostly to the development of the script! Even after filming there were almost no effect shots completed; these were done during post-production.

[Quintus 5,391]

Yeah, but you make it sound like the story was this all encompassing plot driven wordy masterpiece, merely supported by the cutting edge special effects. The plot (and language) of Star Wars is just as basic, if not MORE basic than Avatar's. The pretty visuals are the real storyteller, the real motivation for going to the cinema. It's precisely the reason the two films were devoured by the mass market audience.

Why the two are being compared in the first place, I have no idea, besides the one truth that both movies absolutely were designed with the invention on new technology in the minds of their creators.

[Datameister 1,394]

The plot of Star Wars is definitely basic, and it depends strongly on pre-existing archetypes, but for some reason, it's so much less bothersome when Star Wars does it. And in Star Wars, the visual effects very much feel like they're just part of the whole package - just another tool to tell the story. With Avatar, it feels more like the story is a tool to give meaning to the visual effects. Is that a bad thing? Who knows. But it's definitely different.

I'd also argue that Star Wars was a lot more technologically innovative, anyhow. For all the hype, Avatar is yet another unsuccessful attempt to climb out of the "uncanny valley", using 3D technology that offered unremarkable results with greater convenience for the filmmakers. It obviously took a lot of time, money, effort, and creativity...don't get me wrong...but I'd say the results are still pretty much in line with what we normally expect from visual effects these days, quality-wise. Just in greater volume. Star Wars seems to have been a much bigger game-changer.

[Quintus 5,391]

It absolutely was in every way. Very different times, though.

The plot of Star Wars is definitely basic, and it depends strongly on pre-existing archetypes, but for some reason, it's so much less bothersome when Star Wars does it.

Which is where the debate sort of crumbles. Though it appears on the face of it to be an effort to determine which movie did it 'better', the discussion is revealed, as is often the case, to be just another argument based on subjective personal opinion.

I agree with you, by the way.

[Datameister 1,394]

True, of course. And I admit, I'm rather lost with regards to what we're currently debating, anyhow.

[Quintus 5,391]

Only on JWFan

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

I thought I paid for this? Whats my name? Take me home....

[Sandor 459]

Yeah, but you make it sound like the story was this all emcompassing plot driven wordy masterpiece, merely supported by the cutting edge special effects. The plot (and language) of Star Wars is just as basic, if not MORE basic than Avatar's. The pretty visuals are the real storyteller, the real motivation for going to the cinema. It's precisely the reason the two films were devoured by the mass market audience.

Why the two are being compared in the first place, I have no idea, besides the one truth that both movies absolutely were designed with the invention on new technology in the minds of their creators.

If you don't see that the reason for the popularity of Star Wars can be just as much (if not more) credited to the story and characters as it can be to the visuals then I guess you don't understand the impact it had on popular culture.

Star Wars is very simple and there is something very beautiful about that. Characters like Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, the droids or Obi-Wan Kenobi became instant icons and memorable. Concepts such as The Force, lightsabers, the Empire, etc. were really imaginative.

Avatar is not simple; it's simplistic. Characters like Jake Sully or any other from the movie have zero effect on people. That's what bothers me about the movie. It feels like a story that's been written to support the 3D technology whereas Star Wars always felt like the technology was created to support the story.

It's easy to think of Star Wars as something non-profound. A simplistic story without depth or weight. Again; if you perceive Star Wars as something that tries to be Tolkien or Herbert than you're so missing the point. Star Wars is a simple fairy tale full of great characters, designs and ideas. It's the greatest original film story I know, but it is simple. However; creating something so pure and conceptually striking may be one of the hardest things to do.

[Quintus 5,391]

Yeah, read my second reply to Joe.

I step away from debates involving fanboys.

I will close though by saying that I agree that SW wipes the floor with Avatar.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Star Wars has an almost seamless blend of both the internal (the characters, the story) and the external, the look of the film, the effects, sets, locations. THIS is why it captured peoples imagination and became so popular and influential. It was percieved as more then just a clotheshanger for the latest innovation in special effects.

However, without those effects Star Wars would not have worked.

[Quintus 5,391]

Indeed.

Star Wars has an almost seamless blend of both the internal (the characters, the story) and the external, the look of the film, the effects, sets, locations. THIS is why it captured peoples imagination

Of course, there are probably folk who think the exact same of Avatar. Some of them might even think SW is a load of rubbish, can't see what all the fuss is about.

It's goes around in circles, apples and oranges. It's pretty pointless.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

We shall see if the characters of Avatar are as well remembered in 30 years time. Even Cameron's Jack and Rose have already faded from public memory to some extent. So far The Terminator is his most lasting character.

[Quintus 5,391]

Avatar will be forgotten (unless the sequels give it life), I don't think Titanic will be.

I wonder, would Star Wars be remembered as it is, if it weren't for it's two sequels?

[Sandor 459]

Indeed.

Star Wars has an almost seamless blend of both the internal (the characters, the story) and the external, the look of the film, the effects, sets, locations. THIS is why it captured peoples imagination

Of course, there are probably folk who think the exact same of Avatar. Some of them might even think SW is a load of rubbish, can't see what all the fuss is about.

It's goes around in circles, apples and oranges. It's pretty pointless.

I know you don't like to debate with fanboys, but yeah - everything posted here is pretty pointless in the end.

I'm not at all interested in the opinions of "some Avatar fans" who disregard Star Wars.

The characters and concepts of SW instantly became part of popular culture and have proven to be very endurable. This is not dependent on personal opinion or taste.

Avatar will be forgotten (unless the sequels give it life), I don't think Titanic will be.

I wonder, would Star Wars be remembered as it is, if it weren't for it's two sequels?

The Empire Strikes Back in particular is very responsible for strengthening the characters and ideas from Star Wars, but the foundation was definitaly well established with Star Wars. ESB of course also addded Yoda and the Vader-Luke storyline.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

TESB was a very effective sequel because it added to the universe created in Star Wars, instead of just repeated the same general plot, which is what most sequels do. It also actually developed the characters.

[Sandor 459]

TESB was a very effective sequel because it added to the universe created in Star Wars, instead of just repeated the same general plot, which is what most sequels do. It also actually developed the characters.

Part of the reason it's my favorite film.

[Quintus 5,391]

I prefer the under-developed, purer original.

I'm not at all interested in the opinions of "some Avatar fans" who disregard Star Wars.

Then surely you would expect the same dismissive tone from Avatar fans when some Star Wars fans disregard Avatar?

Personally, I'm interested in the opinions of either camp.

But pleeeeease, let's get this thread back on track. It's about the 3D debate and not another excuse to talk about how great Star Wars is, again.

[Sandor 459]

However, without those effects Star Wars would not have worked.

And without the story, the characters and the imaginative concepts of the film the effects would't have worked either.

And Quint, please allow me one last response:

The opinion of Avatar-fans on Star Wars interests me about as much as Jonas Brothers-fans opinion on The Beatles.

Now you give me the zzz smiley again, and let's indeed get back to discussing 3D...!

[Quintus 5,391]

[AC1 3,565]

We shall see if the characters of Avatar are as well remembered in 30 years time.

Of course not. That's what you get if your only goal is making a show reel for 3D.